MN - An Opportunity for the Public to Comment and Provide Feedback to the Minnesota State GAL Board

URGENT UPDATE - This is an important opportunity for the public to provide input to the Minnesota State GAL Board. A group of concerned parents has been fighting for reform, and specifically asked to improve the complaint procedure so when you file a complaint against a Guardian it is actually heard and investigated. The Board responded and has published a draft of the proposed changes to the complaint procedure: 

http://mn.gov/guardian-ad-litem/Notices/

You can submit feedback to Program Admin Suzanne Alliegro via instructions on the site. OR you can contact this group of parents, and work together with them to give feedback. They may offer public comment at the next GAL Board meeting.

E-mail: victimsofmanning@hotmail.com

OR

https://acalltoactionblog.wordpress.com/

ME - Sen David Burns Replies to our Open Letter

Within hours of our letter going out to Senator David Burns we received a response back from him. Below is Sen Burn's response.

Dr. Collins,

Thank you for your questions. First and foremost, the Judiciary Chairs follow the Maine Constitution and Joint Rules to conduct the process of reviewing Judicial nominees. As I said on the Senate floor, our Committee listened to a very long and, we feel, fair Committee hearing on Judge Moskowitz, as we do for each nomination. The Chairs did all in our ability and power to give everyone opportunity to be heard on the issue. It is very difficult to be exact on just how much time each speaker gets without rudely cutting someone's time short. I believe that was done fairly, in spite of what some have protested about. Everyone's testimony is equally important. When there is written testimony, we try to keep oral comments as close to the allotted time as possible.

As you know, the Committee had much written comment and materials provided to them before, during and after the Public Hearing. Also, the rules that are set before us, allow for the nominee to have opportunity to respond to testimony given. After the hearing, there was a break where our individual caucuses had an opportunity to talk among themselves, which is consistent with the Legislature's Joint Rules in any issue brought before us. The Chairs were in agreement that a sufficient amount of time was needed for each Committee member to review and consider all that had been provided to them on this issue, before voting. It was also important for any response from the nominee to come forward. For these reasons the Chairs decided that we would hold the vote, as the rules allow, until after the weekend. As you also know, there was a considerable amount of unsolicited e-mails that were circulated to us during that time period. Each of those were provided to the clerk to be made a part of the public record. There were no inappropriate meetings or discussions that took place during that time that the Chairs are aware of. All testimony and written comment that the Committee was provided is public and available for public access.

When we reconvened, the Committee members had each come to their own conclusions of the "fitness" for this nominee to be reappointed and cast their vote accordingly. This is a process that is in place for us to follow and I believe that each Judiciary Committee member takes it very seriously. It is unfortunate that some individuals and legislators have tried to impugn the integrity of the Committee members. Having spent the last, nearly 5 months, with them, I can assure anyone that they are all very committed to fairness, transparency and of the utmost integrity. We all understand that some of the criticism over this "process" and some of the judicial nominees comes as a result of very difficult personal experiences with family courts and none of us minimize the importance of those experiences and the significance of those perspectives. However, some of the slanderous statements that have been made surrounding these proceedings are unconscionable and do not have any place in legitimate and constructive debate and discussion!

Respectively,

David Burns

NatGAL is working on Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform. If you are or have been a consumer of judicial services and have had an issue with the court. We would encourage you to contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Letter to Sen David Burns may be found here:
2015-05-23 An Open Letter to Judiciary Committee on Confirmation of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz

ME - An Open Letter to Judiciary Committee on Confirmation of the Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz

In an effort to have government transparent we are publishing the following letter to Sen David Burns. The letter deals with the confirmation deliberations that the Judicial Committee had over a weekend before a unanimous vote was given. It was emailed to all committee members the Senate President and the Bangor Daily News as well as the Portland Press Herald. We are presenting to you the letter:

May 23, 2015
Senator David Burns
Chair Judiciary Committee

Dear Dave,

I’m writing you as chair of the Judiciary Committee to ask that you help us understand the committee's "deliberations" on the reappointment of Judge Jeffrey Moskowitz. Like many people who followed the May 12 proceedings, I'm puzzled.

What we witnessed that day was the committee entering the hearing room, sitting, and immediately giving a round of 13 "yeses" – with no comment and no questions. It was a stunningly synchronized delivery, and many people are wondering how this degree of orchestration was achieved.

From some of the committee members, we've heard a variety of “explanations” that shed little light on what actually transpired to arrive at a unanimous decision, and Sen. David Dutremble related some of these in his speech from the Senate floor on May 15. The Bangor Daily News and Portland Press Herald both have published several stories on the Moskowitz reappointment, but there clearly is more to this than was reported.

We'd like to understand why you chose not to include the public in your committee's deliberations on this "controversial judge."

I greatly would appreciate a reply. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Jerry Collins

NatGAL supports any effort to bring about Family Court and Guardian ad litem reform. Please contact us if you have had any issues in or with either at NationalGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

ME - May 7, 2015: Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz expected to face opposition in reappointment

Many thanks to Judy Harrison (BDN) for the recent article: “Judge who levied gag order expected to face challenge in reappointment”

The article is about Hon Jeffrey Moskowitz and the issues surrounding his court room and the endorsement by Judicial Selection Committee (headed by Joshua Tardy Esq.) to Maine's Joint Standing Committee on Judiciary. May 7, 2015 will see the confirmation hearing of this judge at 2 pm.

It is also the story of one woman's experience in this court. She is not unique in the experience. It is a story of personal pain.

In addition we have a survey asking anyone who is willing to voice an opinion on his reappointment. The public (majority) was left out of the process. A committee consisting of lawyers ( headed by Joshua Tardy Esq. ) conducted a survey which went out to members of Maine’s Bar (minority). The results of our anonymous survey will be presented to the committee on May 7 and posted online. To take the survey click here. Survey will open in a new window/ tab.


Related articles:

Complaining About Judicial Conduct - The Oversight of Judges

ME - Is the Re-appointment Process of Judges Broken - the Endorsement of the Hon Patricia Worth

On Thursday March 19, 2015 was a moment of truth at the re-appointment hearing for the Hon Patricia Worth. A gang of lawyers, a representative of the bar, a judge and the head of the Judicial re-appointment committee came to give testimony about Judge Worth - which was glowing. Stating that we are lucky in this state to have such a judge, that this judge is caring about the clients before her, helping those who are Prose and involved in the community. If the testimony stopped there (and quite often it does), one would come away from the hearing that there is nothing wrong with our judges in this state. Classic lawyer references of another lawyer

But these fawning views are out of touch with reality in our Family Courts and courts in general.

A unique and quite different "reality check" was offered by several parents and concerned citizens. They did something that was previously unthinkable. These parents and citizens stood before the States Judiciary Committee, a room full of lawyers and judges and told true, personal stories of Judicial abuse which was inflicted and suffered in the Judge Worth Family Court.

These parents and citizens who went before the Judicial Committee were scared, upset, concerned and outnumbered by those testifying from the legal profession. They were in a personally uncomfortable position but had the strength to stand up and let the committee know - their elected Representatives - that there is a problem. A BIG problem that has been festering for years which needs to be addressed.

Their testimony touched all listeners, as they presented the human face of parents ripped away from their children. Stripped financially. Emotions drained by the process that a judge put them through.

Are our Family Courts there to inflict punishment on good parents? In the Worth Court one would think that is the case where good solid parents are prevented from having a relationship with their children. Supervised visits are common, testing, screening and various questionable courses with no end in sight. No goal for outcome - but there is always a carrot being dangled in front of their faces to keep them hoping, keep them hooked. These parents would be better served by Child Protective - because the worse of abusers has a goal. Not in this court.

How many lawyers came out to testify that there might be a problem with this court? By our count not one. You see there is a disincentive to tell the truth when the committee is collecting testimony. As a lawyer working in Hon Patricia Worth's court, if I speak ill of her performance and behavior I put my professional career at risk. I put my family's financial lives at risk. Because now the Judge can pay back my testimonial truth in unfavorable judgements.  Or… engineer a 'Sua sonte' complaint with the Overseers of the Bar against me.

These parents and concerned citizens took a risk. You can also. It you have been hurt by the Family Court process. By a Guardian ad litem. Speak up and let your representatives know what you went through. Rock the boat and educate those around you. If you remain silent - change will never come. You can bet the other side is talking. Support Family Court reform. Contact us at NationalGALalert@gmail.com - find us on Facebook or call/text 207-370-9801

Provided here is some of the testimony given by concerned citizens and parents:

Dr Jerome A Collins - Audio

Kirk Thomas - Audio

Laurie Ryan - Audio

Christie Griffin - Audio

Christie Starett - Audio

OH - Lorain attorney who worked as court-appointed child advocate charged with downloading child porn

The real issue is that this Guardian ad litem (GAL) is a court appointed officer. Someone who is backed backed by the court system. What does it say for the court system if it is endorsing this person. What kind of damage did this person do. Awhile ago we heard of a case where the GAL told a parent that he was going to have a weekend sleepover with her son. Mind you the GAL was in his late 50s and the child was 8 at the time. The mother fought in court and was coerced into allowing the sleepover to happen. The first time I heard this story my skin crawled and the thought which entered my mind is child porn.  Did it happen? In light of this case maybe it did. The fact of the matter is that our courts who we trust and entrust with our children's lives are ill prepared to deal with issues like the story we have here about a GAL.

Cleveland.com

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A fixture of Lorain County Domestic Relations Court who often worked with children in divorce and delinquency cases is facing a federal child pornography charge.

James Paterson, 49, admitted to an FBI agent in a March 30 interview that he had between 500 and 1,000 images and 200 videos of child pornography on his computer, according to a criminal complaint filed Tuesday. He also admitted to posting comments on websites where he claimed he was a pedophile and sexually abused children, though he also said he never abused any children.

Paterson, who lives in Lorain, was also a member of a website where users can download child porn. A search on his computer found images of children -- some less than a year old -- being sexually abused, the complaint says.

Paterson worked as a guardian ad litem -- a position appointed by a judge in custody, divorce and juvenile cases to advocate on behalf of a child. He started taking cases in February 2013, according to Jody Barilla, Lorain County Domestic Relations Court's administrator.

He represented 21 children between then and Tuesday, Barilla said, and judges removed him from four pending cases once they received word of the criminal case against him.

She said he passed a background check conducted by the local court.

At the time of his arrest, Paterson also had a law practice based out of his house.

Full story: Cleveland.com

If you are involved in a divorce/ custody do not take for granted that the Guardian ad litem is pure as the driven snow.

Maine - A Case to Deny Re-Appointment of Hon Patricia Worth

The reappointment of a Judge is an important task. Judges are tasked with interpreting our laws in a fair way and are supposed to be consistent with their interpretation. Lawyers, Guardians ad litem and other members of the Divorce Industry are currently tasked with providing data on the Judge. These are people who work with the Judge and whose livelihood will be determined by this person in the future. Complaining about the judges conduct could come back to haunt them. Is there any incentive to point out a judges flaws by this group or is the incentive to tread softly?

The public ( Prose ) - who represent 74% of the those who appear in Family Courts are rarely if ever sought after for their opinion. Yet it is this group who bear the weight of a re-appointment of a dysfunctional judge. Today we have a Judge who is one of four Family Court judges who is on the verge of being re-appointed. But - not without a fight by many brave souls who have been victimized by the Family Court in Belfast Maine:


Senator Burns, Representative Hobbins, members of the Judiciary Committee

My name is Jerome Collins, and I am a resident of Kennebunkport.

In addressing the task before you of deciding whether to re-appoint Judge Patricia Worth you face a choice. Do you follow past practice and merely listen to the "all is well" message of the Governor's Judicial Appointment Committee?  Or do you heed the cries of the public who have actually appeared before this judge?  At one end of the spectrum are professional references from the "legal industry" that she serves.  At the other end are the anguished cries from a few brave souls who dare to speak the truth about the abysmal human practices that pervade her court, the cruelty of her decisions, and havoc she wreaks on parents and children.

The Governor's Judicial Appointment Committee does not hear those sad voices. It talks only with members of the legal profession - judges, lawyers, leadership of the Bar, the Overseers of the Bar, and the disciplinary committees of the profession.  We all know that the members of any one profession are reticent about being forthright about a colleague’s shortcomings. But that reticence has no place in this process, because the judiciary was not established to insulate and protect itself.  It was established to protect the rights of the people.  Therefore, the people must be made part of the process.

We believe the reappointment of any judge should include inquiry into the experience of non-lawyers in that courtroom. We are told that 74% of litigants in Maine family courts are ‘pro se’.  This is a powerful statistic; it is a glaring majority of unrepresented people, in courts, acting as their own “lawyer”. Their voices also deserve to be part of the process.  We know Judge Worth has told pro se litigants “don’t come back to this court without a lawyer”. We are concerned that she feels entitled to unilaterally inflict the financial burden of hiring lawyers upon the citizens of Maine. And we must wonder what other constitutional rights are being violated by her?

As a grass roots group, we suggest some questions that might be raised in a “people-focused” legislative  audit of the Judge Worth court. It reflects many issues that were not covered by the Judicial Vetting Committee. In our opinion, this esteemed Judiciary Committee, cannot be fully informed and make well reasoned decisions about Judge Worth (or other judges) without the answers to these questions about the actual nature of a given court.

Judge Worth’s position on the Judicial Responsibility and Disability Committee and her approval by colleagues on the vetting committee makes the answer to the consumer oriented questions below the only way the Judiciary Committee will be able to have fair  “oversight” in this matter.  We feel that the Judiciary Committee of the Legislature needs to act upon its constitutional oversight power and act to protect the people of Maine. We suggest an audit of the Worth court before any decision is made as to reappointment. 

Here are some ideas that might go into such an audit:     

1. How many 'pro se' cases does Judge Worth see in her court?
2. How many has she ordered (or the equivalent) not to come back without a lawyer?
3. Do family court litigants (pro se and those with lawyers) feel intimidated by this judge?
4. Does the judge help 'pro se' litigants, or do they feel harassed and bullied?
5. How long does the judge take to render an opinion?
6. Are her judicial opinions fractured into components that come out at intervals requiring multiple appeals (and the expense involved) if one disagrees?
7. Does she accept as valid reports from Children's Protective, from clinical consultants, or does she offer opinions unrelated to professional opinions?  How often? Does she appear to feel she "knows better" than professional consultants? How often are her personal judicial opinions at variance with professional opinions?
8. How often does Attorney McLean appear in her court? How often does he receive a favorable judgment? Is he ever reprimanded for overly aggressive behavior?
9. How does the judge treat litigants, 'pro se' or represented, who oppose Attorney McLean? Who wins?
10. How many appeals have been made to the Supreme Court in opposition to her decisions? Results?
11. Does the Judge seem to have solid knowledge about the law and case law concerning Guardians ad litem and family matters? Does she rely on “judicial discretion” instead of law?
12. How often does this judge offer suspended "jail" in family matters and for what offenses?
13. How does she use supervised visits between parent and child? For what issues,  based on what evidence? Does she always have a plan for moving from supervised visits to regular visits and shared parenting?
14. Does she show idiosyncratic interpretations of laws and regulations?
15. How promptly does she respond to motions for findings of fact and law?  How often are these requests dismissed?
16. Is she on the Judicial Disability Committee? Other Judicial committees?
17. Have complaints been made against her practices as a judge? Does her position on the Judicial Responsibility and Disability Committee have a chilling effect on would-be complainants? Are lawyers and others intimidated?
18. Does she have health issues that might impact her judicial functioning?  How long has she handled family matter cases?  Is she in danger of “burn out”?
19. From CANON  B. (7) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law. Does this cannon allow a judge to order a 'pro se' litigant not to ever appear without a lawyer?
20. The legislature has stated that unless otherwise warranted the public policy of the state is to assure frequent and continuing parent/child contact after divorce and that the courts should encourage shared rights are responsibilities in child rearing.  Does Judge Worth routinely follow that policy?
21. How many of Judge Worth’s cases are zero sum games when it comes to children: one parent wins and the other loses?  This result would not be consistent with the above legislative intent.  And of the winner/loser cases, are most of the “winner” cases handled by the same few lawyers?
22. Finally, do parents in family matters before Judge Worth have rights that are equal to or less than parents in Title 22 child protection matters?

POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF A COURT AUDIT: A range of options for action. These are just ideas/examples some of which are obviously borrowed from other systems evaluating performance of professional workers.

• This court is functioning well and is serving citizens of Maine according to the spirit and letter of the law.
• This court needs more regular oversight from Judicial Branch authorities.
• This court needs regular professional supervision of the judge’s actions to correct some judicial “rough edges”.
• This judge shows deficiencies in the necessary knowledge, skill or experience (or intrusive personal factors)  to be a judge. These are in need of correction before continuing as a judge.
• This judge appears to be showing signs of “judicial burnout” or other personal issues and is in need of R&R, transfer to another type of court, further judicial education, mentoring, or a move into some other function within the Judicial Branch system.
• This judge is malfunctioning and should retire or be removed from being a judge.
• Other ideas for corrective action.

To find out more about how you can bring about change in our Family Court please contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com or find us on Facebook.

Maine - Tardiff V Sullivan - Another Poster Child case for a Dysfunctional Family Court

We are pleased to be able to publish this brief, a public document and an appeal to the Maine Supreme Court. It is a horrifying story. It shows how a series of court actions have deprived a good man, a good father, a good citizen from all but limited, very expensive supervised visits with his young son. The irrationality of the family  court  process and  its  actions are stunning to most lay readers. The basic tactic in her wish for total custody, as we read it, is that the mother, the former spouse and her aggressive lawyer, simply allege, again and again, that the father is abusive to the child. This allegation  of child abuse  on their part seems made very forcefully, but with absolutely no evidence that we can see. In fact when the father, Larry Tardiff, has had professional evaluations (please, note, the plural) the professionals find no evidence that would suggest any need for protection of the child in his presence or any irrational anger in need of correction. NONE! Judge Patricia Worth, the judge in this case, seems totally bamboozled by the strongly proclaimed, ungrounded allegations of danger to the child by the  mother and her attorney. It's allegations - by themselves - as an incredible power tool in court. In our view, the judge is failing to look at the facts, failing to move beyond the noise, substituting her impressions for actual professionally grounded facts and seems to have a poor grasp of some of the points of law that she is using against Larry. It is an unbelievable nightmare for this man and his son from which there seems to be No exit!

It is also important for a reader to remember that in a criminal case of child abuse, normally there would be a planned program back to full parenting. Dare we say that Larry would be better off were he a criminal abuser? One senses that Judge Worth ought to be removed from this case. She seems to be in a rut and unable to think "outside of the box" in this case.

The appeal is a search for rationality, a search for a chance for father and son to have a normal parenting relationship, a search for an end to Judge Worth's ungrounded decisions. We shall be presenting the decision of the Supreme Court in another posting. In the meantime, read on as the suspense about a Supreme Court decision builds.

The brief which was submitted to the Supreme Court may be found here. Please note that the name of the child has been redacted and that the pdf will need to be down loaded for the links to function properly.

If you have had issues in Family Court of with Judge Patricia Worth we ask that you contact us at MeGALalert@gmail.com. Call us at 207-370-9801 or find us on Facebook. We are striving to being about reform in the Family Court system.